Fat Guy

The general outline is something like this: 1 - Copy the badge graphic to your computer. This is accomplished differently in different browsers but, for example, in Firefox you right click on the image and select "Save Image As..." 2 - Upload the image from your computer to whatever service you already use to host images. This might be Flickr, it might be a direct upload to Wordpress.com . . . it could be a lot of different things, each of which handles it a slightly different way. However, if you presently have photos on your website, this should be a familiar process. 3 - Add that image to your website. That may mean getting the HTML from Flickr and adding it as a sidebar text widget in Wordpress. Or it may mean following whatever the procedure is for Blogger, Typepad, Movable Type, Lyceum, Greymatter, a bulletin board software package, a custom solution, etc. 4. Link from the image to egullet.org/ethics -- again various instructions per platform. In some cases you highlight it and use a tool to add the link, in other cases you have to work at the code level. As long as the number of new signatories per day remains manageable, I and others familiar with these technologies are happy to work one-on-one with people who need help with badge downloading, uploading and placement. It's also not the end of the world if people link to the banner image on our server, which for some may be a little easier, although at some point if the whole world does it then we'll feel the load and we're not Google. (edited to add step 4)

This will work, however as we state in the instructions "If possible, to conserve our bandwidth, please copy and upload the badge to your own image-hosting service." I'll try to see if there are some general instructions written up for that anywhere, however because there are so many combinations of software and platforms out there, I'm not sure we can give universal directions.

We hope to do so, subject to 1- enough people signing on to make for a not-too-embarrassingly-short list, and 2- our ability to develop an automated process for maintaining the list.

This topic is for discussion of the eG Ethics code: questions, suggestions, elaboration . . .

Many thanks for all your comments. We have made several changes to the draft code and published the first iteration of the code, along with badges and the signatory form, at eGullet.org/ethics.

(Note: for a list of eG Ethics code signatories, please see here.) eG Ethics code for online writers (signatory form and badges follow the code) The internet allows anybody with access to publish globally and instantaneously. This technological advance has changed the world for the better, but overall consideration of ethics has not kept pace with technology. In addition, while there is a free and casual attitude about much online writing, many online writers don't realize that they can be held accountable for theft of intellectual property, defamation and other acts. The eG Ethics code, propagated by the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, a 501c3 not-for-profit public charity dedicated to advancement of the culinary arts primarily through online media, provides guidance for online writers: bloggers, those who post on message boards, and others who write online in any capacity. The code is particularly focused on those who write about food, however it may be helpful to any online writer. While the code is in part informed by the ethics of print journalism, it was drafted with the specific needs and realities of the online world in mind. Signatories to the code indicate their acceptance by filling out the web form below and displaying a badge on their websites or, if they are individuals posting on message boards, linking to the code in their signatures. Adoption of the code is purely voluntary, and the eGullet Society will not serve as an enforcement or adjudication body. The code follows. To become a signatory to the eG Ethics code, please submit the following form: <iframe width="540" height="618" src="http://formsmarts.com/form/7mz?mode=embed&lay=2" scrolling="auto" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" style="overflow-x:hidden"><a href="http://formsmarts.com/form/7mz">Can't see the form? Click here</a>.</iframe><div style="margin:3px 3px 10px 3px;"><a target="_blank" href="http://formsmarts.com/" title="FormSmarts Form Builder">Form Builder</a> by <a target="_blank" href="http://formsmarts.com/form-spam" title="Stop Form Spam">FormSmarts</a> | <a target="syronex_help" rel="nofollow" href="http://formsmarts.com/privacy" title="FormSmarts Privacy Policy">Privacy</a></div> If you are a website operator or otherwise have the ability to do so, please display one of the following signatory badges linked to eGullet.org/ethics or to a page on your website reproducing the code and linking to eGullet.org/ethics. Note that the current version of the code will always reside at eGullet.org/ethics so it is easier to keep your website up-to-date if you link to the code here rather than reproducing it there. If you are not able to display the badge, please state your signatory status using plain text and, if possible, a link to eGullet.org/ethics. If possible, to conserve our bandwidth, please copy and upload the badge to your own image-hosting service.

I'd just like to note (again) that many of us are objecting to both the messenger and the message.

Once you go down the path of saying, "DVD rentals aren't necessities of life, therefore you can afford to spend that money at the farmer's market," you're injecting yourself into someone else's determination of what the necessities of life are. The next step is "You don't need an expensive root canal because one more or less tooth isn't a necessity of life, especially when you eat nice soft eggs cooked in the fireplace and don't need to chew much. You can just have the tooth pulled for a few dollars and spend the money you saved at the farmer's market."

Setting aside the reality that the conversation did not end, let's play a game. Take the statement "Hey, poor person, you shouldn't spend your money on _____. You should instead spend it at the farmers' market." Please answer for each _____: "Nikes" right/questionable/wrong "DVD rentals" right/questionable/wrong "a new winter coat" right/questionable/wrong "college" right/questionable/wrong "root canal instead of just having the tooth pulled" right/questionable/wrong I hope this exercise makes clear the wrongness of lecturing poor people on how to spend their extra pennies. But if not, we can always continue the conversation.

While there are a couple (as in two) signature items that have remained on the menu consistently (the egg with caviar, and the shaved foie gras) the pace of change on the other menu items is quite rapid -- even if you go twice in the same month you'll notice several changes both at the whole-dish level and at the component level. Of course, it's basically a restaurant without regulars -- most customers only eat there once -- so it's not clear that menu changes are all that important from the customer-interest perspective. I've never experienced a dinner at Ko that lasted more than about two hours, unless it was the late sitting and I voluntarily lingered after dessert. But the actual meal service is pretty much two hours no matter what. For 10 courses, it's hard to imagine two hours (12 minutes per course) being considered a slow pace.

I was reading this short interview with Alice Waters and noticed this variant of the Nikes comment: I started thinking about why I find that line of argument so offensive. After all, I've made a similar argument many times in the past: whenever somebody says "How can you justify spending hundreds of dollars on a fancy meal?" I argue that plenty of people spend hundreds of dollars on Superbowl tickets. In other words, it's my choice about how to spend my discretionary income. The difference is, when two middle-class people with enough discretionary income to buy Superbowl tickets or eat at Jean Georges are having that debate it makes sense to frame it in terms of a choice about disposable income, but when you're talking about people of very limited means it's a bit much. Yes, even for poor people there are choices about how to spend money. It would be possible, in the abstract, to reduce all discretionary expenditures -- video rentals, sneakers -- to zero, and to wear only hemp sandals from the Salvation Army and to entertain oneself exclusively by playing kick the can and singing show tunes. But it's a bit much to demand that people live that way. You want to demand that economically comfortable people spend more money on food in order to achieve various lofty goals, that's idealistic. You want to demand that poor people spend more money on food in order to achieve those same goals, that's just wrong.

I'm not sure what "most similar organizations" includes, and "power" is a loaded term, but yes, we think we have something to offer here. For the most part, it's all about the code itself: we think on its own terms it's a good document and the badge implies little more than that. Our team also has a lot of collective experience working on and talking about these issues, so we offer that as well.

The code provides:

That sounds like a great meal, however on the last point I feel compelled to admit: I had a pizza stone in the oven and I did go back. While a pizza stone is indeed a nice addition to the oven, I found it to be inconvenient and messy. Just leaving it in didn't work because we do too much other cooking in our oven and the stone interferes with baking cookies and the like. It also makes adjusting the racks difficult. But the worst part was the mess: flour and/or cornmeal on the oven floor, the kitchen floor, the counters, etc. So my goal became to see how well I could do with a sheet pan to contain the whole process. Some recent discussions on other topics have actually led me to experiment with lower rather than higher temperatures. I've had some early, promising results but am not yet ready to draw any conclusions.

We're trying to keep it limited to essential provisions. It's a practical code not a treatise on ethics. We will (and already are through discussions like this), however, offer lots of elaboration on points exactly like this. Not okay under the code unless there is explicit permission or an applicable license. It's a double standard because it's two different things. If I rely on the original work of someone who has gone to the trouble to place that work online, I should link to it. If I'm the author of the original work, I shouldn't use other websites as pure marketing tools by linking to it -- I should reproduce it. I agree. We have found through many years of experience in this area that a large cross-section of people consider it suspicious when editing powers are used in secret after the fact. They see "edited to add" and equivalent conventions as more honest. With spelling changes, it's easy enough at the end of a post to note "(edited to correct spelling)." Many eG Forums participants do this as a matter of course and it's a good system, balancing the needs of creative flow with respect for the historical record. That's a bit much. We'll try to maintain a mailing list and notify people of code updates. But ultimately we place the onus on signatories to keep up to date.

I have some issues with codes of ethics in general. Setting those aside, since the decision has already been made to adopt the code and the only open questions are ones of specific wording, let me address the specific concerns you raise. Is there a reason that this is much more stringent than fair use? I don't agree that it's "much more stringent" but, in any event, we're creating a code of ethics not a code of law. Law and ethics are, needless to say, not the same thing. The laws of intellectual property may or may not respect original creation as much as the eG Ethics code does. I do not see the point of this. If, for example, I am writing something critical of a book that I do not believe deserves to be purchased, why should I link to a place to purchase it? This was discussed above and a change is being made. Also, for individual users, how does this fit with policies like those here at the eGullet forums where reproduction of content is preferred rather than linking back to ones own blog? I don't understand the relevance of that situation. Content under one's own control is clearly a different species. Presumably only if you are writing about that product or service, yes? If someone sends me something unsolicited and I do not write about it, I should not be required to disclose that they sent me something. Yes, one would only need to make a disclosure where relevant. Not all websites should be required to allow comments.To say otherwise presumes a great deal about the purpose of that site. Moreover, "free" comment is ambiguous. What about comment moderation? By my account, eGullet does not allow free comment, there is a process that needs to be gone through before the ability to comment is granted. Not all websites are required to allow comments, but the eG Ethics code won't work for those that don't allow comments. The code doesn't require unfettered comment. It allows for limits such as terms of service, registration and a requirement of civility. But it does require that there be a mechanism for fair comment. What about websites that are intentionally tongue-in-cheek? What about those that take an outrageous tone? As long as they are up-front about these things, is that a problem? Satire doesn't constitute a factual claim, so no that wouldn't be a problem. Say I have a popular blog post on a topic. I find out that a fact in that blog post is incorrect. Shouldn't I update it? In most cases the best way to update an older post is to leave the post intact and add something along the lines of a parenthetical ("edited to add"). There are also situations where there needs to be a full edit, such as removal of an intellectual property violation. The final version has some language changes to make this all more clear. This is problematic unless you maintain earlier versions as well and allow people to sign on to a specific version. Someone might sign on to 1.0 - but not be willing to follow the changes that you make between 1.0 and 2.0. Retaining them as a signatory to the updated code would be unethical. All versions will be maintained and dated, and those who feel they can no longer comply with an updated version are asked to remove the badge.

Saltshaker, the notion that there will be a stigma attached to not adopting the eG Ethics code is risible. You attribute a hilarious amount of power to our organization. And I'm saying, if anything like that ever happens, I will announce loudly and repeatedly that it's just one possible code and that there should never be a stigma attached to not adopting it specifically. Whether there should be a stigma attached to the total absence of any code is another question. I think if we can apply some pressure to online writers to think about ethics and make their guidelines clear, that will be a good thing.

It won't. A bum recommendation isn't a question of ethics. We're not trying to solve all the world's problems, or even all the world's ethics problems. We're trying to provide some good guidance for online writers, and I think we achieve that with the code.

I don't get any of saltshaker's points, but that last one is especially ill-conceived. Defamation does indeed exist in the law regardless of what standards a writer proclaims. You're no less liable for not having a code of ethics. Our hope, however, is that writers who follow the eG Ethics code will expose themselves to less risk of all kinds of legal action than writers who follow no code. That much seems like a no-brainer. The fear that somehow the eG Ethics badge will be so powerful that its absence will become a stigma is, while interesting, hard to take seriously. I can only hope it becomes that powerful and that we have to start worrying about how to explain that it's not a stigma not to display the badge. I think our main challenge will be building awareness and getting people to adopt it in the first place, though.

Since this project ended I've easily been spending $50 less a week (about 1/3 less) on groceries without any reduction in the quality of what my family is eating. Just avoiding waste and being smarter about planning has saved that much. Yet, even with all this conservation, I find myself now with a refrigerator and freezer overflowing with food. So, today we're skipping the Sunday shopping trip to Fairway and going another week without shopping. I'm not going to Klatsch about it -- for the current Klatsch tune in to David Ross in Las Vegas -- but I am pretty amazed that I find myself in this position again so soon.

Weekday lunch at Jean Georges -- one of the best restaurants in the country -- is cheaper than dinner at plenty of mediocre restaurants. To me it's the ultimate foodie bargain in New York City.

I can see why you might not want to hold yourself to the same standards of rigor in editing. The blog format, and online writing in general, allows for more spontaneity than that and usually there aren't even editors involved. But none of that removes the need for ethics. A lot of people who write online never stop to think that, once they click the publish button, their words are available worldwide for anyone to read. They are instant global publishers. Wonderful advances in technology have made that a reality. But as with many technological advances, our thinking about ethics needs to catch up. If you're an instant global publisher you should act responsibly. That's what we're trying to help with. Those who write online should also realize that, as much as they want it to be a casual thing, the second they publish their words globally, they can be called to account for copyright-law violations, defamation, invasion of privacy and various other acts. A little planning ahead, a little thinking about responsible conduct, can help prevent some really unpleasant surprises.

That's kind of why we used the word "fair"! The interactivity that the internet allows is probably the best means of keeping websites honest. Websites that seek to provide one-way information, on the old media model, should probably look to codes of ethics designed for old media. Websites that allow for interactivity may find the eG Ethics code, which incorporates interactive discussion, to be useful. The code doesn't call for totally unfettered commenting opportunities, just fair ones. There can be moderation, there can be terms of service, there can be rules requiring civil comment etc. But in the end fair comment must be allowed under the code. For example, if a restaurant is criticized, the owner must be allowed to respond.

This point has already been addressed, but I'd simply add that on its face the comment makes little sense. We could cite hundreds of codes that are not enforceable, such as the ethics of any religion if you live in a secular state, but we don't call those codes "useless." In addition, as has already been explained, a certain amount of "enforcement" may come from peer pressure, media attention and a website's user-commenting process.

Oh, I know!